South Australia’s Nuclear Citizens Jury to have a ?scientific panel
A businessman, an environmentalist and an oncologist walked into a citizens’ jury…http://indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/06/23/a-businessman-and-environmentalist-and-an-oncologist-walked-into-a-citizens-jury/ Passionate advocates and fierce opponents of a state-based high-level nuclear waste dump will confront the first Citizens’ Jury debating the issue over the weekend.
Business SA chief Nigel McBride, who last week confirmed his organisation was now “advocating actively and positively for a high-level waste repository” will join a panel of prominent figures to debate the issues and field questions from the 50 jurors on Sunday.
McBride will butt heads with the likes of Conservation Council SA chief Craig Wilkins, who has strongly argued against increasing SA’s involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle.
They will join SA’s chief scientist Dr Leanna Read, SA Native Title Services CEO Keith Thomas and ethicist Simon Longstaff on the panel, along with mining lobbyist Jason Kuchel, Kelly-Anne Saffin from the Northern and Yorke Regional Development Australia and Michael Penniment, Director of Radiation Oncology at the Royal Adelaide Hospital.
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Consultation and Response Agency chief executive Madeline Richardson said in a statement the panel was “a dynamic way of exploring some of the big issues in an open and informative way”, with the discussion to be livestreamed to the public.
“It is about letting everyday South Australians frame what the community should focus on, rather than the Government, politicians or lobby groups setting the agenda,” she said.
The jury will meet for four days across two weekends to identify key issues that require further debate.
Jury convenor Emily Jenke, from DemocracyCo, said the panel discussion was “designed to stretch the jurors’ thinking, spark ideas and explore issues through presentations by speakers who can elevate the conversation”.
“We know jurors want to hear from people who have strong opinions, and also people who have specific expertise,” she said.
“The group is made up of a range of people – leaders, experts and people with a specific interest – and that’s the balance we are looking for.”
Topics such as health, Aboriginal heritage, environment, industry, ethics, community, business and potential reputational damage will be canvassed.
Taxpayers $100,000,000 to be spent up front BEFORE any decision on South Australia nuclear waste importing
Valdis Dunis Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia 24 June 16
Last night on Adelaide ABC TV News, The Royal Commission’s Jacob Engineering Manager Tim Johnson was interviewed after his submission to SA Parliament yesterday. He stated for the government to be certain that a waste dump would be feasible technically and financially would – like any large technical engineering program – require detailed analysis, and given the complexity Jacob’s estimate is about A$100M that the State Government would have to spent upfront BEFORE we could confirm a yes/no to make sure it will work and make money for us.
Should we spend $100M on more nuclear analysis, or spend the money instead on renewables and other services in our state?
http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/…/2016/02/JOHNSON-Tim-489-496.pdf
http://www.abc.net.au/news/sa/
Australia joins the nuclear marketing push to India
Australia backs India to join nuclear supplier club, China hesitates http://www.smh.com.au/world/australia-backs-india-to-join-nuclear-supplier-club-china-hesitates-20160623-gpq1pq.html
June 23, 2016 Daniel Flitton Senior Correspondent Australia will formally back India to join the club of nuclear suppliers at a summit in Seoul on Friday, a move that will finally lay to rest a bitter stoush over selling uranium to the nuclear armed giant.
But China has signalled it could veto the bid because India has refused to sign the international treaty to stop the spread of atomic weapons.
The US is strongly backing India to join the 48-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, seen as the last hurdle to allow international trade in nuclear materials to India.
The bid has been complicated by a late application from Pakistan to also join the group. India and Pakistan have each built atomic arsenals, but insist they only want access to nuclear materials to generate electricity. The potential sale of uranium to India has a long history and is seen as a test of great power rivalry in the region.
Australia fell out with India during the Kevin Rudd years after Labor junked a Howard-era deal to sell uranium to New Delhi on a promise the yellowcake would only be used for peaceful purposes. Mr Rudd insisted allowing India an exemption would weaken global rules, with an angry India insisting it had never spread nuclear technology.
A fierce debate later erupted within Labor after Julia Gillard decided to reverse Australia’s position and back the deal.
Labor’s national platform now calls for the export of uranium “only under the most stringent conditions” and to countries signed up to the non-proliferation treaty, which limits the number of nuclear armed nations and pledges to work toward disarmament.
But Labor has granted India an exception as “an important strategic partner for Australia” despite concern over an Abbott government deal that safeguards on uranium sales to India are too weak and parliamentary calls for additional controls.
Australian diplomats at the meeting in Seoul will “strongly support” India’s application but have yet to commit on Pakistan’s bid.
There is a wait-and-see approach to Pakistan on how it will control export of nuclear materials, given the record of the country’s former chief scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan in providing nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea.
Any country in the nuclear suppliers group effectively wields a veto as the organisation makes decisions only by consensus. China, one of five countries recognised as nuclear-armed nations under international law, has flagged its objection to allowing India into the group without signing the non-proliferation treaty.
But India has refused to sign on, given this would mean surrendering its nuclear weapons.
Australians have saved $4.4bn in a few years, with solar rooftops
the report estimated solar owners will avoid 6.3m tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in 2016 – which they found is equivalent to taking a third of all trucks off Australian roads.
Solar Citizens found 80% of federal electorates have more voters with rooftop solar 
than would be required to change their sitting members. And of the electorates with the highest numbers of solar owners, seven out of the top 10 were now held by Coalition MPs.
Australians have spent almost $8bn on rooftop solar since 2007, says report https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/22/australians-have-spent-almost-8bn-on-rooftop-solar-since-2007-says-report Solar Citizens says since the 2012-13 financial year, rooftop solar owners have saved about $1bn on their household bills each year, Guardian, Michael Slezak, 22 June 16, Australian households and small businesses have invested more than $1bn a year in rooftop solar over the past five years, spending a total of almost $8bn since 2007, new calculations show.
In its latest State of Solar report, Solar Citizens – which campaigns for, and represents the interests of, solar owners – has for the first time estimated Australian’s out-of-pocket investment in rooftop solar, how much money it has saved consumers, and how much carbon it has abated. Continue reading
New South Wales leading the nation with large scale solar farms
NSW to double existing solar farm capacity with four new plants approved, SMH, Peter Hannam ENVIRONMENT EDITOR, THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD 23 JUNE 16 The Baird government has granted planning approval for four new large-scale solar plants, potentially more than doubling the existing capacity in the state.
The four plants approved for construction have a combined capacity of 175 megawatts (MW), and would generate another electricity for 56,000 homes if built. “NSW is Australia’s large-scale solar leader, with the country’s three largest solar farms and hundreds of megawatts of solar electricity capacity online and in the pipeline,” planning minister Rob Stokes said. Continue reading
Malcolm Turnbull backs importing foreign nuclear waste
Australia could store nuclear waste for other countries, Malcolm Turnbull says, Guardian, Daniel Hurst, 28 Oct 2015, PM tells Adelaide radio that he was sceptical Australia would ever build nuclear power stations, but a larger role in nuclear fuel industry was worth exploring Australia should “look closely” at expanding its role in the global nuclear energy industry, including leasing fuel rods to other countries and then storing the waste afterwards, Malcolm Turnbull has said…….Turnbull made the observations in a radio interview on Wednesday, a day after he named Dr Alan Finkel, a vocal advocate of nuclear power and the outgoing chancellor of Monash University, as Australia’s next chief scientist…..
“we’ve got the uranium [and] we mine it; why don’t we process it, turn it into the fuel rods, lease them to people overseas; when they’re done, bring them back – and we’ve got very stable geology in remote locations and a stable political environment – and store them?”
“That is a business that you could well imagine here.”…….
Turnbull is seeking to bolster the Liberal party’s popularity in South Australia, where the government suffered political difficulties after his predecessor, Tony Abbott, backed away from a pre-election promise to build 12 submarines locally……https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/28/australia-could-store-nuclear-waste-for-other-countries-malcolm-turnbull-says?CMP=share_btn_tw
Carbon dioxide hits record highs in Southern hemisphere
Science Daily June 21, 2016 Source: CNRS
- Summary:
- Last month, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) as measured at Amsterdam Island, in the southern Indian Ocean, for the first time exceeded the symbolic value of 400 ppm, or 0.04%. The CO2 concentrations recorded at the Amsterdam Island research station are the lowest in the world (excluding seasonal cycles), due to the island’s remoteness from anthropogenic sources. The 400 ppm threshold was already crossed in the Northern hemisphere during the 2012/2013 winter. In addition, the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is speeding up, growing by more than 2 ppm annually over the past four years……..https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160621094250.htm
Nuclear Citizens Jury South Australia Saturday, June 25 and Sunday, June 26
The first Jury of 50 South Australians has now been randomly selected with representatives from far and wide across the state ranging in age from 18 to over 65. The jurors will meet for the first time in Adelaide next Saturday, June 25 and Sunday, June 26 for a weekend of deliberations.
South Australians will have the chance to sit in and watch first-hand the deliberations and workings of a Citizens’ Jury. Ten randomly selected people will be able to attend selected sessions of over both upcoming Jury weekends.
To register for your chance to be offered an observer place at one of the Jury sessions, you must first be logged in or registered on the YourSAy Nuclear website, before filling out the application form.
The observers will be able to sit in during a morning or afternoon session. Each day there are between three and four sessions available. All open sessions will be streamed live on the YourSAy Nuclear website
Registration for the first two days of the Citizens’ Jury (Saturday 25 June and Sunday 26 June) will close at 5pm Wednesday 22 June, 2016.
Registrations for the last two days (Saturday 9 July and Sunday 10 July) will close at 5pm on Wednesday 6th July. All applicants’ names will be sorted into a random stratification process which will be
facilitated independently by newDemocracy Foundation. To allocate seats, a random number draw will be conducted.
Does the South Australian plan meet the BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR CITIZENS’ JURY ?
BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR CITIZENS’ JURY - Assurance that the participants are randomly selected from as wide a range as possible.
- Honorarium payment, crèche facilities, and easy-access jury locations, etc, every effort made not to exclude any person because of their situation.
- The selection of a truly neutral Advisory body, with equal representation from pro and anti nuclear witnesses.
- Moderators for the hearings also selected to be neutral.
- Questions well selected so as not to influence the response (this was one of the major failings of the Royal Commission)
- Complete video and audio of the hearings available to the public, (though not the private discussions of the participants)
The public availability of complete audio or video recordings of all jury hearings, (though not of “jury room” deliberations if participants would prefer privacy) is an important aid to transparency. Multiple sources of funding help to ensure that the jury’s organisers are not seen as having a financial interest in producing a verdict that supports the interests of a single funding body. To maximise the scrutiny they provide, the two or more funders should have somewhat opposing interests regarding the subject likely to be under discussion.
The moment in a citizens jury that is most important for its participants is the point at which they deliver their recommendations to those in power. A jury in which jurors are not only allowed to present their conclusions themselves at a press conference, but also undertake work towards ensuring that some of their conclusions are implemented, is a far more empowering process than one in which their verdict is merely extracted by researchers and written up without further input from the jurors. http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU37.html
| Iain Walker <iain.walker@newdemocracy.com.au |
but sub-contracted out to South Australia’s DemocracyCo
- – CEOs are Emma Lawson and Emily Jenke.
Principal Advisor is Ilka Walkley
- CONTACTS:
- 0421 098 355
- 0427 834 062
- Ilka Walkley
- 0409 961 902
- Vivienne Lambert
- 0417 084 475
- Note how the poisoned chalice is always given to women. They can then be blamed when it all stuffs up
David Noonan’s Nuclear waste security brief, in brief
Nuclear waste security brief by David Noonan, Independent Environment Campaigner, June 16
“Proposed International nuclear waste storage exposes Australia to risks of terrorism”
An International nuclear waste storage agenda exposes Australia to a range of potential profound adverse impacts through nuclear insecurity as a target for terrorism.
Claims by the Nuclear Commission Findings Report (Feb 2016, p.16-20) that SA “offers a safe long term capability” for the storage and disposal of high level nuclear waste are contradicted by the fact that Australia will be exposed to significant and developing threats in terrorism over decades of proposed Nuclear port and above-ground waste storage operations.
The UK Nuclear Free Local Authorities are concerned a determined terrorist group could be able to pierce nuclear waste transport and storage casks in use around the world and states that transport of nuclear materials should be limited as much as practical, with safe on-site storage facilities developed instead.
The Nuclear Commission’s nuclear waste transport and storage plans face fast emerging and unexpected nuclear security threats as lethal technology gets ever more destructive. Rocket propelled grenades, demolition charges and innovative available technology like the use of small drones by non-state actors are of increasing concern.
Attacks could seriously compromise operations of a nuclear port or an above-ground nuclear waste storage facility and the extent of impacts could conceivably require the site to be abandoned.
For women, climate change is an election priority
Election 2016: Climate change – an election priority for women, ABC News, 19 June 16 By Erin Stewart Women care more about addressing climate change than men, doubtless because they suffer more from its effects, writes Erin Stewart. So why are the Coalition and Labor not prioritising it in their election campaigns?
In his capacity as the former minister for women, Tony Abbott claimed the best thing he did was repeal the carbon tax.
“As many of us know,” he said in December 2014, “women are particularly focused on the household budget, and the repeal of the carbon tax means a $550-a-year benefit for the average family”.
Aside from overstating his figures, Mr Abbott expressed the absurdly inaccurate view that women were more interested in domestic arithmetic than the world around them. In actuality, women care a great deal about climate change, and are more likely to suffer as a result of it.
Eighty-two per cent of female respondents to the ABC’s Vote Compass felt the Federal Government should do “much” or “somewhat more” to tackle climate change, compared with just 67 per cent of men.
These findings are in line with data from the Pew Research Centre which found 83 per cent of Australian women see climate change as a serious problem, compared with just 71 per cent of men.
Part of the reason for the climate gap is doubtless because women would be disproportionately affected if climate change was not effectively addressed. Chair of Population Health at Western Sydney University Professor Hilary Bambrick said extreme weather events killed more women than men globally because they were less likely to have the resources to survive.
They were also more likely to experience poverty and social restrictions, were less likely to be part of decision-making processes, and were also more likely to be exposed to mosquito-borne diseases in performing household tasks such as collecting water and harvesting food.
The reasons climate change was especially bad for women, Professor Bambrick wrote recently at the Conversation, was “largely because they are overrepresented among the world’s poor and are thus more exposed to these dangers”.
Australian women ‘financially vulnerable’ to climate change The threats are seen in Australia, too. Greens Senator Larissa Waters said she believed women were particularly financially vulnerable to climate change due to structural disadvantage and discrimination.
“With lesser financial means, it will be harder for women to recover from damage to their homes from extreme weather events driven by global warming, such as flooding, droughts or bushfires,” Senator Waters told ABC News…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-18/election-2016:-climate-change-and-women/7489354
Security dangers in Nuclear Royal Commission’s plan
Nuclear Waste Brief (June 2016) by David Noonan, Independent Environment Campaigner
Proposed International nuclear waste storage exposes Australia to risks of terrorism “In the event of a major nuclear accident, adverse impacts on the tourism, agriculture and property sectors could potentially be profound.” Nuclear Royal Commission Finding 155 Feb 2016, Impacts on other Sectors p.28
An International nuclear waste storage agenda exposes Australia to a range of potential profound adverse impacts in major nuclear accidents and in nuclear insecurity as a target for terrorism.
The SA Nuclear Royal Commission Final Report (9 May 2016, 16 Mb) flagged risks in proposed high level nuclear waste transport and storage and concluded that terrorist attack scenarios are conceivable and rocket attack has the greatest potential to cause a release of radiation from impacted waste transport and storage casks (Appendix L – Transport risk analysis p.312).
In an age of terrorism following the devastating September 11th 2001 attacks there is no room for denial on the real security risks society faces in nuclear and radiological terrorism. Continue reading
Policy of Australian Liberal Party on nuclear issues
Jobs and growth?
Why a referendum is needed on South Australian govt’s nuclear waste import plan
john jasson, Your Say 17 June 16 Chapter 6 page 122 [Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission Recommendations] states:
“Because of these shifts, a public vote on a proposal is not a reliable indicator of ongoing social consent: A vote for or against a proposal one day may not result in the same level of social consent one month later. ”
The two paragraphs that precede this unsubstantiated opinion as declared by the commission are in my view irrelevant because they relate to changes in public consent for matters of technological change that are easily reversible and have risk profiles that are minimal by comparison to a nuclear storage or transportation accident.
For this reason I have no trust in this process as I believe this to be a blatant attempt to circumvent the people of SA having a true say in this matter. A referendum is the only acceptable way to achieve public consent on a matter that has such significant commercial, safety and social implications for the public of SA. http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/discussions/nuclear-community-conversation-comment-on-the-specific-recommendations-in-the-final-report
Labor and Liberal united in disregard for indigenous people, over nuclear waste dumping
7 shady things Labor & Liberals have in common Progressive Reflection JUNE 1, 2016 CHRIS JENSEN “……..5. Dumping Nuclear waste on Indigenous Australians
Labor and Liberal politicians united earlier this year to profit from turning South Australia into a dumping ground for nuclear waste. But where do you put the most hazardous waste you can think of? Who’s backyard would our political leaders dump a hot radioactive mess in and feel guilt free about it? Who else but Indigenous Australians?.
Fukushima was an unfortunate reminder of how badly nuclear can go wrong, and many countries have since reconsidered nuclear plans. Nuclear is unlikely to ever be the energy of the future it was once thought to be. So why think of poisoning any Australian land with nuclear waste at all?
Because free money!
It’s a dream come true for some Australian politicians – rather than grapple with the politically difficult tasks of ending corporate welfare, or tax loopholes, or paying for essential services the Government could rake in a tidy $6 billion a year for at least 70 years.
All they’d have to do is screw over an indigenous community.
It’s practically business as usual.
And when Labor and Liberal come together to make something happen, they sure can be brazen about their disregard for indigenous people.
Wallerberdina Station near the Flinders Ranges is the only shortlisted site for the nuclear waste dump. Back in November last year, the indigenous community nearby demanded the government reject the proposal.
The dump threatens a local heritage site.
Federal Resources Minister Josh Frydenberg has creatively interpreted their concerns as “a broad level of community support“.
Frydenberg has said that consultation with traditional owners would be undertaken as part of the next phase of the project. That seems nice of him, except that the number of proposed sites for the dump is: 1. Just that site. What do you think the likelihood is the consultation will result in the only site planned being scrapped?
The consultation is there to serve the purpose of pretending to have listened, so that when the site goes ahead and indigenous Australian’s are outraged, they can be patronisingly told they had their chance to have their say………http://www.chrisjensen.info/blog/2016/06/7-shady-things-labor-liberals-agree/
1 This month.
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 